Findings: Northwest Regional Forum Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin Project

May 23, 2006
Menomonie, Wisconsin

"Opportunities and Constraints to Expanding Agriculture-Based Markets and Enterprises in Wisconsin," the first of six regional forums in the project, was held at the Memorial Student Union at the University of Wisconsin-Stout in Menomonie. The purpose of the Northwest Regional Forum was to gather and share information about opportunities and constraints to success in the areas of food systems and innovation, two of the major topics being explored in the project. It also asked for similar input on an array of other project topics, which are articulated in the detailed report of project breakout sessions, to be made available for review at www.wisconsinacademy.org/idea.

Established in 1891, UW-Stout was named for its founder and benefactor, James Huff Stout, a lumberman who harvested the timber of northern Wisconsin. Our forum harvested information from more than 100 participants representing a variety of walks of life. The forum included:

• A keynote address by Frederick Kirschenmann, senior fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa, followed by a question-and-answer period.
• A practitioner panel focused on opportunities and constraints faced by those who provide food for America's consumers, followed by a question-and-answer period.
• Two separate breakout sessions designed to harvest input from forum participants.

PowerPoint presentations, speaker notes and other resources from the forum are posted at www.wisconsinacademy.org/idea/NWforumsummary.html. In this summary, we focus on the input we received from forum participants throughout the day, primarily in two breakout sessions held during the afternoon. A variety of Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin materials are shared at www.wisconsinacademy.org/idea.

What We Learned
A goal of the regional forums is to collect information from thoughtful citizens of Wisconsin interested in developing a vision for healthy and sustainable agriculture and rural life in our state. Following are some of the findings that emerged from information sharing at the Northwest Forum. They are the voices from our day-long dialogue and have been captured for use in future project activities, including a final report to be released in 2007.

VOICES OF THE PEOPLE
Participants in two breakout sessions identified 130 opportunities and 106 constraints to in the areas of food systems, innovation and other project topics. Input was collected from the notes of recorders in groups for Breakout Session No. 1. This session focused primarily on opportunities, constraints and next steps relating to food systems and innovation, the major forum topics. Participants were sorted into eight groups, all exploring the same topics.

Breakout Session No. 2 explored links between food systems, innovation and other project topics. Participants chose to be among the following groups:

Group 1: Land use, working lands, urban/rural interface
Group 2: National forests, timber/wood production, recreation and tourism
Group 3: Rural health care, rural education, state and local government
Group 4: Natural resource conservation; domestic renewable energy; land ownership, preservation, use
Group 5: Production agriculture, domestic renewable energy

For the purposes of this report, these groups will be referred to as Group 1, Group 2 and so on.

Because participants selected breakout groups for Session No 2 based on their interests, the groups varied in size. Input from these groups was recorded on flip chats. Participants identified opportunities and constraints, and then used stickers numbered 1-2-3 to prioritize their findings. The first breakout session did not include a voting process, but the information collected in session notes provides an opportunity to analyze trends.

TRENDS IN OPPORTUNITIES NOTED BY BREAKOUT GROUPS
Based solely on the numbers, the Stout crowd was an optimistic lot. They identified nearly 20 percent more opportunities than constraints. Here is a summary of the opportunities identified by participants:

DIVERSITY: More than any other category, the diversity of Wisconsin's agricultural opportunities and products and natural resource base emerged from the dialogue as a major opportunity in the eyes of participants. The diversity of Wisconsin agriculture was identified as one of two major opportunities by Group 5. The diversity and quality of our resources was among the top three opportunities identified by Group 1. Notes from Breakout Session 1 also show that diversity was seen as an opportunity in four of eight breakout groups, voiced in several different ways.

LAND USE: Identified as both a major opportunity and constraint in both breakout sessions, this catch-all term captured comments on everything from urban sprawl and retirement issues to taxation policies and various regulations that affect land use trends. Land use as an opportunity? Group 1 made the following its top opportunity: "Make a comprehensive land use plan with economic component." Urban sprawl was identified as both an opportunity and a constraint in several breakout groups. How is it an opportunity? Educating new rural residents and developing them as customers were cited as examples.

VALUE-ADDED: The ability to market products that produce higher rates of return for farmers and producers was cited as an opportunity several times. Group 5 identified "value-added processing" as its top opportunity. Notes from groups in Breakout Session 1 show that the participants identified value-added strategies several times. These included "small-scale processing plants," "switching to quality rather than quantity," "using animal wastes to make fertilizers for use here and export the meat," "consumer interest in organic products and healthy foods," and other opportunities that are encompassed by the term "value-added." Related to that, consumer awareness and its impact on the food sector and innovation was identified frequently as an opportunity in both breakout sessions.

BIOENERGY: A growing topic of interest around the country, bioenergy emerged as an opportunity identified in several breakout groups. It is no surprise that Group 3 saw rural energy potential as an opportunity in several ways, since domestic renewable energy was one of its topics for discussion. The group selected a "regional energy design" as its top domestic renewable energy opportunity. Its second-ranked opportunity in that area was "perennial cover for bioenergy." It also offered several other bioenergy opportunities. Group 5, which also explored domestic renewable energy, selected "agriculturally related energy" as its third-highest-rated opportunity and also identified other opportunities under the renewable energy umbrella.

EDUCATION: Near the top of several groups' priorities was education. For the purposes of this snapshot, it is worth noting that education was identified time and again as an opportunity in K-12 schools, institutions of higher education and also among other populations. The Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin is a "Wisconsin Idea Project" of the Wisconsin Academy. The Wisconsin Idea holds that the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state. Participants in our Menonomie forum agree, based on their input. Group 1 made "education across the urban-rural divide and for youths" its second top opportunity. The same group also identified "reconnecting consumers with food - who produces it and how it is produced" as an opportunity. This is essentially an educational endeavor. Group 3 made several education opportunities top priorities. It cited "education for youths on local government and leadership," "connect schools with farmers to provide local food" and "change funding formulas" as priority opportunities. The group also saw "good school systems" as an opportunity. Research and/or education were also identified as opportunities six separate times in Breakout Session 1.

CITIZENSHIP: Viewed as a top opportunity by Group 3 was this: "Run or help others run for local office." Other groups identified opportunities for citizens in a variety of ways. "Be a responsible steward of the land" was identified as an opportunity by Group 1.

HEALTH CARE: Viewed as a major constraint in several breakout groups, the lack of affordable health care was also seen as an opportunity by Group 3, which dealt with the topic of rural health. In fact, the only health care opportunity identified by the group was the "urban-rural connection on lack of health care." The shared interest of rural and urban residents was seen as a way to bring attention to what groups throughout the day identified as a constraint.



TRENDS IN CONSTRAINTS NOTED BY BREAKOUT GROUPS
As noted in the introduction to "Trends in Opportunities" above, participants in the Menomonie forum identified more opportunities than constraints. But they were far from sanguine when it came to describing constraints. As with opportunities, certain trends in perceived constraints emerged from an analysis of the breakout sessions. The general areas of economic concerns, health care and land use emerged most frequently as constraints.

HEALTH CARE: The lack of affordable health care was clearly on the minds of participants. It was cited in four of eight groups in Breakout Session 1. Group 3 in Session 2 scored it highest among its list of constraints. In fact, the "cost deterrent of health care" received more "points" (35) than any other single opportunity or constraint identified by all groups in Breakout Session 2. Also identified as constraints by Group 3 were: "health care burden on employers," "health care crisis in Wisconsin," "some farm jobs don't provide good health care" and "BadgerCare is limited to very low income."

LAND USE: As noted in the opportunities section above, the broad category of land use was identified frequently as both an opportunity and a constraint. The constraints were articulated in several ways. In Breakout Session 2, Group 4 identified "retirement issues and purchase of development rights" as the top land constraint. Closely behind, it cited "taxation policies that undercut preservation." Group 2 listed as its top constraint a number of zoning practices that encourage forest fragmentation. Land prices were cited as a constraint by Group 5. Land use issues were also identified as constraints in four of eight groups in Breakout Session 1.

ECONOMICS: "Farm income" ranked as the second-highest vote-getter among all constraints. Group 5 gave it a score of 30, with seven voters making it their top priority. As noted above, retirement issues also scored among the top constraints. Economic issues intersected with other constraints in a variety of ways. For instance, the issue of affordable health care is both a health and economic issue. The cost of land is an economic and land use issue. Likewise, tax policy can be both a land use and economic issue. Identified in several breakout groups was the impact of government subsidies on economies. Dozens of similar constraints cited by participants have economic roots.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES: This broad category captures constraints identified in both sessions. Groups in Breakout Session No. 1, for instance, identified "subsidies (three times)," "government policy (two times)," and "regulation (two times)" as constraints. Group 5 in Breakout Session 2 cited unfair trade practices as its No. 2 constraint and government deficits as No. 3. Several other constraints identified by this group could be placed in this category, including "lack of country-of-origin labeling," and "lack of USDA-certified meat inspectors." Taxation policies that undercut preservation, mentioned earlier in this summary, and ineffective local land regulations, are examples of constraints identified by other groups.

EDUCATION: As in the opportunities section above, the general term "education" permeated the breakout group discussions of constraints, sometimes directly, other times more subtly. It was obviously a discussion item for Group 3, which dealt with the topic. This group identified two major obstacles in the area of rural education. The first is as much an economic development issue: "opportunities needed for graduates." The group also cited tax policies that impact rural education. Several other constraints identified by various groups relate to education. Some examples: "reduced knowledge of agriculture" and "acceptance of differences." Several comments in Breakout Session No. 1 also focused on education. Comments recorded in a particular in a group from Breakout Session 1 are instructive: "The rural education system suffers. Ag ed is at the top of the list to cut. Ag teachers have to market their programs." The same group also recorded this comment: "251 out of 400-plus schools have ag ed. Twenty to 25 in (the) urban setting."



AND NOW WHAT?
Input from regional forums is of vital importance to the Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin Project. By the time our last forum is held in October 2006, we will have collected thousands of comments from people all across the state, people who cared enough about the future of agriculture and rural Wisconsin to attend and participate. These are the voices of the people. They will inform and shape our final report, to be shared with the state in 2007. To whatever extent this Wisconsin Academy project recommends actions and strategies toward achieving the goal of healthy and sustainable agriculture and rural life in Wisconsin, the voices of the people will guide the effort.

STAY WITH US
The 18-month Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin project continues. Feel free to share in the many resources and materials available at www.wisconsinacademy.org/idea. These include regular updates on forums and other activities, background information on the project and on the Wisconsin Academy, a project bibliography, a photo gallery and other resources.

CONTACTS
Future of Farming Project Co-Chairs:
Stan Gruszynski, stan.gruszynski@uwsp.edu,
715-346-3767
Tom Lyon, tom.lyon@datcp.state.wi.us, 608-224-5016

Future of Farming Project Director:
Wilda Nilsestuen, wnilsestuen@wisconsinacademy.org,
608-263-1692 ext. 12

Future of Farming Project Assistant:
Jill Rubin, jrubin@wisconsinacademy.org, 608-263-1692, ext. 15

Future of Farming Project Communications:
Bill Berry, billnick@charter.net, 715-341-9119

Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Executive Director:
Michael Strigel, mstrigel@wisconsinacademy.org, 608-263-1692, ext. 11

Northwest Regional Forum Co-Chairs:
Margaret Krome, mkrome@inxpress.net, 608-238-1440
Brent McCown, bhmccown@facstaff.wisc.edu, 608-262-0574